Hmm. Looking at all those words makes me so glad I no longer have to bother. In the Coptic church, the fight against "modernism" in the church means arguing over the pronunciation of a language that no one has spoken natively in about 600 years.

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking.

Addendum: A few weeks ago I started using the descriptor "High Church" to explain where I am religiously. Not long after that, I began to think that I should perhaps be a little more specific, to avoid misunderstandings.

This line of thought led me, especially, to one particular question: am I still a Catholic, or am I now an Anglican? (I don't want to get into a lengthy explanation of what Anglican means; but for the sake of interpreting the preceding sentence, suffice it to say that for me "Anglican" includes not only the Anglican Communion, but the Continuing Anglicans as well.) I pondered this question for some weeks, and in the end the answer seemed quite clear: I am a Catholic. I do have a great liking for Anglicanism, at least as understood by the Continuing Anglicans, but it isn't who I am.

Having said all that, I want to set the record straight for anyone who may be wondering if I'm SSPX. I'm not. I definitely believe that the SSPX is and has always been Catholic, and I definitely think that studying them has been very helpful to me as a Catholic, but I'm not SSPX myself.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

Good to hear from you.

To be fair, I think we all grow and increase in wisdom. If we are not struggling to be good, well, we are in decline, and that would be awful.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

Good to hear from you.

To be fair, I think we all grow and increase in wisdom. If we are not struggling to be good, well, we are in decline, and that would be awful.

Good to hear from you too.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

I'm not going to try to say what Papist meant almost 5 years ago, but here's a thought that might help: it isn't too easy being Eastern Catholic, because on the one hand we've got Rome saying "You should believe such-and-such", but we also get "You're not a real Eastern Christian unless you agree with such-and-such" from the Orthodox.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.

Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Maronites believe in all that. Of course, they have become more Latinized as time has gone on (not saying that's a bad thing, even Maronites admit to that). When I was Catholic I looked into Maronite Catholicism for a bit.

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking. I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility 6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.

Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

:thumbsup:

I've commented before that if I were Orthodox, I wouldn't switch to Catholicism. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to convert to Orthodoxy.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.[/quote]Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.[/quote]

That is benevolent of you. Do you concede the same for Orthodox Christians?

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.

Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.[/quote]

That is benevolent of you. Do you concede the same for Orthodox Christians?[/quote] Do you mean that I believe that all Orthodox Christians should profess what Catholics do, then the answer is also yes. Do mean that understand that the schism is a very complicated matter and I should not judge the spiritual lives of the very many very holy EOs and OOs? Again that is correct. Do I think that there are real differences between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians? Yes! Do I Think that some people exaggerate those differences for the sake of picking fights? Yes to that as well.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

I am

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.

If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 10:35:51 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.

If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

Then why do some Eastern Catholics keep up the charade of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome? There are real doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. If your doctrine is Roman Catholic, you are not Orthodox. I am not writing this to be hostile. I am writing this in the name of intellectual honesty. If you accept the papal claims you are not Orthodox. If you reject the papal claims and believe as we do, you belong in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I'll make you a deal. If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic. Your argument goes both ways.

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I'll make you a deal. If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic. Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church. How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?Fr. John W. Morris

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.

If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

Then why do some Eastern Catholics keep up the charade of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

I guess it's partially emotional. In the same way, if I were taking a survey with a question "Do you embrace a Low Petrine view, a High Petrine view, or an Absolutist Petrine view?" might be inclined to answer "a High Petrine view", even if I know that the phrase "Low Petrine" is intended to encompass my view.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.

If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

Then why do some Eastern Catholics keep up the charade of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

I guess it's partially emotional. In the same way, if I were taking a survey with a question "Do you embrace a Low Petrine view, a High Petrine view, or an Absolutist Petrine view?" might be inclined to answer "a High Petrine view", even if I know that the phrase "Low Petrine" is intended to encompass my view.

No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics. They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics. They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Not that I want to white-wash, but it needs to be pointed out that Catholic-Orthodox relations are, in fact, making significant progress ...

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"- the Balamand Statement

(As you've probably heard me say before: if I were Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism, but likewise I'm not going to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.)

No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics. They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Not that I want to white-wash, but it needs to be pointed out that Catholic-Orthodox relations are, in fact, making significant progress ...

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"- the Balamand Statement

(As you've probably heard me say before: if I were Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism, but likewise I'm not going to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.)

To use an analogy if a couple has divorced and wants to get back together, it will not work, until they resolve the issues that led to the divorce. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the same, Unity for the sake of unity will not work unless we resolve the problems that led to the division and which have prevented the healing of the division. That requires honesty even if it offends the other party.

No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics. They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Not that I want to white-wash, but it needs to be pointed out that Catholic-Orthodox relations are, in fact, making significant progress ...

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"- the Balamand Statement

(As you've probably heard me say before: if I were Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism, but likewise I'm not going to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.)

^I think, from my friends both in Europe (Slovakia and some parts of Ukraine) and the United States, that post Balamand, things began to settle down regarding disputes between the Green Catholics and the Orthodox. (I'm ONLY speaking of the portions of the communique dealing with the status of the Greek Catholics in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of reasonably free election in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's. I realize that tension did not disappear but rather an uneasy acceptance of the status quo took hold. )

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I'll make you a deal. If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic. Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I'll make you a deal. If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic. Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.

Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy. Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I'll make you a deal. If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic. Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.

Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy. Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople. Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine? In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic. This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy). However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church. It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition." Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices. What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern. However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern? St. Alexis chose Eastern. The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox? Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church. I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.

Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father I'll make you a deal. If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic. Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.

Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy. Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.

You are right at the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch no one believed in anything like the modern papacy. It took centuries for Rome to move from a primacy of honor as "first among equals" to the all powerful papacy of today. What Rome would like for most people to forget or ignore most of the claims of the papacy are not based on the New Testament, the Holy Fathers, the practices of the ancient undivided Church, or the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, but on document called the Donation of Constantine. According to this document after Pope St. Sylvester cured him of leprosy, St. Constantine gave him a document giving the Bishop of Rome supreme power in the Church. However, there are two major problems with the Donation of Constantine. The first is that St. Constantine had no authority to give anyone supreme authority in the Church. The second is that it was proven by Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) that the document was a forgery. In his letter demanding obedience from Patriarch Michael I in 1054, Pope Leo IX based his argument on the Donation of Constantine. Therefore, most of the papal claims are illegitimate.

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople. Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris

You have to understand Peter J: that is what he was getting at, Father. Because we defend our copyright to Orthodox and Catholic, the Romans of the East are supposed to relinquish their title to "Rome."

There is a Roman Orthodox bishop in Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople. Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris

You have to understand Peter J: that is what he was getting at, Father. Because we defend our copyright to Orthodox and Catholic, the Romans of the East are supposed to relinquish their title to "Rome."

There is a Roman Orthodox bishop in Rome.

As far as I know there is no Orthodox Bishop in Rome. It is not a matter of copyright. It is a matter of truth. We are the Orthodox Church. It is misleading for group that is not a part of the Orthodox Church, but is under Rome to use the name of our Church.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church. How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?Fr. John W. Morris

Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox. I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic." You would not accept that, nor should you. So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox, aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic. And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life. I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such.

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople. Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris

Alright. (Anyhow, the "Oh wait ... " was a reference to ialmisry, as he just graciously illustrated. )